What would you say to the Minister of Immigration? Really.

[Guest KatyNick]

Well said Taz!!! I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I know I don't post very much on here - but this is where I come to find out what is happening, and I also just skip Wanderer's post - not interested in what he/she has to say at all!

[Guest Freaks]

Excuse me Wanderer!!!... I have kept my mouth shut up until now with all your dribble on these posts, I had actually got to the stage where I just skip your posts as they are too long and too boring! But now as you have just got personal with me and my post I will no longer keep my mouth shut! Who do you think you are???

 

Firstly, I would like to say I am glad it did not make you laugh my comments, because they weren’t meant too. It was a “figure of speech” and I can assure you I am not laughing either! Why is it that others can understand my comments, but YOU have to pick at it and start dictating the issue???

 

Also, I would like to bring to your attention, after you said “the states are just a little lazy you could say in using DIACS base list but I do not blame them for why have something different”... You pretend to know everything about everything regarding this situation, well perhaps you should get your facts right. The States were not being lazy using the DIAC’s base list, as some of them had in fact revised their lists way before the September changes had even occurred, showing which trades they felt were critical within their states. Not that this is even relevant to the comments I made.

 

What I was trying to say, as you obviously have misunderstood me so badly, was that the DIAC have commented in their press release to Peter Mares radio show that “The CSL is underpinned by the labour market research undertaken by the states and territories and reflects the differing regional economies that have emerged across the country. The demand for skills in the north-west of WA is vastly different to the skills needed in Hobart, Melbourne or regional NSW.” Now if the states and territories are the ones who are highlighting what skills are in demand and in what region, then why are their lists so different to the DIAC’s list even after they have been amended? And therefore, what the DIAC have stated in their press release would suggest to me is not actually correct. And to perhaps enable them to be correct they should allow the State Sponsored applicants on the States Occupation List be part of the priority processing!!!

Now, I am sure you have plenty more to say to me after you have read the above, but to be quite honest, I am not interested in your debate! I know that this is an open forum and of course people’s opinions may differ, however, I do feel that you like to preach over every comment made on this thread and others too. This would not be so bad if we actually new something about you? Most of us on this forum have been honest in who we are with previous posts or our signatures, however, nobody knows who you are? Are you qualified in these subjects you preach about? When are you going to reveal what you do? Apart from someone who sits on this forum trying to challenge everyone who dare write a negative comment at such a negative time!

Whether you mean to or not Wanderer, you can be very rude and insulting. And, I for one do not like it and am very angered that you have made me feel this way. This forum is a fantastic forum with many great people on it who give out great advice and support. It’s just a shame you have to come along and lower the tone!

 

You go girl, good on ya. Well said!!!:notworthy:

 

 

Cheers

Mrs freak

[merlino]

Again we see yet another thread becoming a PIO vs. wanderer debate...

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Wanderer

 

It sure doesn't make me laugh Taz when people laugh at misunderstanding the processes involved.

 

 

Your patronising, insulting retort to Taz2008 is downright RUDE, chum. Withdraw it and apologise to her for it, please. It is plain that nobody except you imagines that opening your mouth for the purpose of inserting your foot is a brainy idea.

 

Gill

[Guest wanderer]

Taz2008,

Despite how others may feel about debate, I can agree with you there is no point in it if people do have a view and are less than open to suggestions, it not being about making people angry or whatever.

 

You have used a figure of speech you say and so have I .

 

There are more than a few posters on different threads who have at times expressed being confused with what is happening with respect to immigration and whilst you have put something your way, I have put a view that I would hope may clarify that DIAC do not ignore the states, an underpinning does not mean a national list will have every occupation all the states may have on their lists.

 

Perhaps we can agree on the people that do attempt to get some sense of direction from the forum ought to be considered as well as those who advise and support it.

[SHANO7]

Could somebody please clarify for me and my family.

 

We have lodged a 175 and this was acknowledged on the 6th nov 09 and are awaiting SS to change to 176.

 

Our daughter was 16 in september. With the process changing somewhat and the predicted delay will we have a problem if she turns 18 before a decision is made on our vsia application that she is included on.

 

Thanks

Shane

[Guest wanderer]

Shane,

Could somebody please clarify for me and my family.

 

Quite possible that you and many other families could have an issue to address in respect to children approaching 18YO.

 

As it stands now, a child is considered a dependant up until turning 18.

After 18 and to 25, they can still be considered a dependant if in fact they are dependant, eg. doing further studying and relying on parents for support.

 

Have a look at Booklet #2 on Information Booklets - Applications & Forms - Visas & Immigration , about P12 or thereabouts for more info.

Gill posted the other day on there being allowed up to 18 hrs. working whilst studying and still being a dependant, and though I have not read that myself elsewhere, it seems reasonable and no reason to disbelieve.

An IA may be able to give more precise info

 

Depending on your skill set, have you considered keeping abreast of Employer Sponsorship PR, [something of a search required but it is happening for some people]

Employer Sponsored Workers - Workers - Visas & Immigration

 

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/72013-finding-ens-rsms-employer-sponsors.html is a thread re some people posting their ENS/RSMS experiences.

And 175/176 application fees can be applied to ENS/RSMS application and latter can be anywhere in Australia.

 

Best wishes, hope above helps.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Shane

 

Our daughter was 16 in september. With the process changing somewhat and the predicted delay will we have a problem if she turns 18 before a decision is made on our vsia application that she is included on.

 

 

Despite being able o leave school if she wishes, what is your daughter doing, please? If she is still in full time education and you can convince her to remain in full time education then you are unlikely to have headaches with DIAC later on.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[SHANO7]

Hi Shane

 

 

Despite being able o leave school if she wishes, what is your daughter doing, please? If she is still in full time education and you can convince her to remain in full time education then you are unlikely to have headaches with DIAC later on.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Hi Gill

 

Kitty was 16 on 22-09-09 and is currently in her last year of secondary education. she will be attending the 6th form which is a 2 year course starting in September 2010 when she will be almost 17. So therefore would leave 6th form in July 2012 at the age of 18.

 

Hope this should make us ok.

Thanks

Shane

[Guest wanderer]

Shane,

Kitty was 16 on 22-09-09 and is currently in her last year of secondary education. she will be attending the 6th form which is a 2 year course starting in September 2010 when she will be almost 17. So therefore would leave 6th form in July 2012 at the age of 18.

 

Hope this should make us ok.

Thanks

 

Hope so too but you do not want to get to July 2012 without a plan.

Even with what DIAC are forecasting now for non CSL applicants it is up in the air when your application could be finalised.

 

May pay to still keep open to getting a sponsorship, especially if Kitty is not of a mind to go further with her education.

 

Are there other children, for if not a back-up plan could be the Remaining Relative Visa.

[SHANO7]

Shane,

 

Hope so too but you do not want to get to July 2012 without a plan.

Even with what DIAC are forecasting now for non CSL applicants it is up in the air when your application could be finalised.

 

May pay to still keep open to getting a sponsorship, especially if Kitty is not of a mind to go further with her education.

 

Are there other children, for if not a back-up plan could be the Remaining Relative Visa.

 

Hi Wanderer

 

No, Only Kitty . We have applied for SS so hopefully we will be Ss on MODL . Wife is a Hairdesser.

 

Fingers crossed

Thanks for your advice

Shane

[Guest hwantazia]

I saw this news from other forum.

 

whats happening on 475 state sponsered??? - Page 50

 

look #500

 

He says priority processing will be changed 9. Dec.

Do you have any idea about this news??:eek:

[merlino]

I saw this news from other forum.

 

whats happening on 475 state sponsered??? - Page 50

 

look #500

 

He says priority processing will be changed 9. Dec.

Do you have any idea about this news??:eek:

 

hwantazia,

 

I can't comment on this one, maybe our agent friends here might be able to do that...

[Guest Gollywobbler]

I saw this news from other forum.

 

whats happening on 475 state sponsered??? - Page 50

 

look #500

 

He says priority processing will be changed 9. Dec.

Do you have any idea about this news??:eek:

 

Hi there

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

I don't think the rumour on the other forum is accurate.

 

However George Lombard is a highly respected Registered Migration Agent in Sydney. Recently on Poms in Oz, George said:

 

No I think most people expected the states to make decisions within their narrow economic interest but the subclass 475 program is very clearly nothing to do with desired skills - more about addressing regional population policy - and so should have been suspended on 17 December. It has been effectively suspended now. A lot of the 176 nominations are also suspect economically - one of Wanderer's posts makes the point that the states compete with each other and I think in this case they were all scrabbling for as much of the pie as they could get. But DIAC knew very well what occupations were being lodged and what state sponsorships were being received.

 

 

According to George, re-shuffling the order in which applications are processed has - incidentally or deliberately - had the effect of suspending applications for the sc 475 visa.

 

Does this help?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[merlino]

Hi there

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

I don't think the rumour on the other forum is accurate.

 

However George Lombard is a highly respected Registered Migration Agent in Sydney. Recently on Poms in Oz, George said:

 

 

 

According to George, re-shuffling the order in which applications are processed has - incidentally or deliberately - had the effect of suspending applcations for the sc 475 visa.

 

Does this help?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Hi Gill, thanks for that. On the topic of dropping the 475 program, do you know what this means for existing decision-ready 475ers who have applied in good faith, have our files been incinerated? I hope not!

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Gill, thanks for that. On the topic of dropping the 475 program, do you know what this means for existing decision-ready 475ers who have applied in good faith, have our files been incinerated? I hope not!

 

Hi Merlino

 

As I understand the fact sheet on the DIAC website, the Minister only has two options, being:

 

1. Cap & terminate the sc 475 visa, which means treating all the sc 475 applications as if they had never been made; or

 

2. Process the applications eventually since the cap & terminate provisions have not been invoked.

 

I guess he could close the sc 475 visa to new applicants but he has not dne that either.

 

My instinct is that Minister Evans is pro migraation. I suspect he is busy with the short term aim of trying to get his Government - and maybe himself - re-electd as a more immediate priority, though. I reckon that would be migrants are to be the pawns in Evans' own re-election campaign.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[McKlaut]

So, does anybody knows whether minister is going to attend today's, Friday 13th :biggrin:, National Interest program?

Or again we will miss him as usual.

[McKlaut]

Finally minister came but he did not apologise for the mess. He thinks it's OK.

 

 

Peter was good asking him sharp questions.

[merlino]

He was interviewed on radio?

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Yes he did. Peter Mares was quite assertive and it was a good interview (for the bits I heard).

 

The Minister at one stage strongly hinted that he was asking the Department to look at making refunds, and when that was clarified by Peter he then denied that the legislation allowed it.

 

My take: The Minister was firslty trying to defuse people's outrage and seem fairer than he has been acting. Then, when pushed, he admitted that he could not commit to making a refund.

 

Interpretation - politics overrules fair play.

 

So don't expect a refund.

 

If you get one, well and good, and if you don't (because the Labour Govt caucus refused to let the money go) , the Minister will say it wasn't possible and conveniently omit to mention that he could have the law changed to allow it.

 

I think it's 30/70 against making a refund for 90% of you, except for a thousand or two cases that were processed to the last point of visa approval.

 

I didn't hear all the interview but the bits I heard were satisfying in terms of Peter's efforts to hold the Minister accountable.

 

The National Interest

 

As at 6.45 Australian time, the transcript and audio were not online yet.

 

Thanks Peter! :biggrin:

[merlino]

Great job Peter!

[McKlaut]

He was interviewed on radio?

 

Yes. About 20-30 min before.

He said now 35000 onshore and 105000 offshore in the pipeline now.

He's confident he's doing right things with beautiful eyes and deep heart. I like that beauty guy.

sucks..

[Guest Kangaroo]

Yesterday the MIA sent a letter to the Australian newspapers and other media:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday 17 November 2009

UNACCEPTABLE SKILLED MIGRATION DELAYS

 

Recent changes to Australia’s General Skilled Migration (GSM) program treat existing applicants unfairly and have resulted in many unintended consequences.

The Migration Institute of Australia has written to the Minister for Immigration expressing concerns about the priority processing of General Skilled Migration (GSM) applications. It is an issue of grave concern for 180,000 individuals and their families (on and offshore) who have paid for and lodged applications with DIAC and now find themselves languishing in a bureaucratic limbo.

 

The current priority processing regime creates numerous serious problems, including:

• Damage to Australia’s reputation - Thousands of people, who in good faith paid visa application charges with the quite reasonable expectation that the applications would be finalised within published service standard times, will be waiting indefinite lengths of time for a decision to be made about their GSM visa applications.

• Unreasonable additional costs – Tests and checks to support visa applications can cost up to $1300 and need to be repeated to ensure validity at the time of processing.

• Difficulty of Employment on Bridging Visas – applicants consigned to waiting years pending visa decisions may find it difficult to work professionally as employers prefer a potential employee to hold permanent residence.

 

Some GSM applicants were only weeks away from having visas approved after being in the system 18 months already. The Institute believes it is particularly important to give priority processing exemptions to those applications which were about to be finalised and for which further health and police checks had been requested.

 

The MIA suggests that it is reasonable for the Department to refund fees for applicants who suddenly face up to three years before their application will be processed and now wish to withdraw their application. When speaking to The National Interest (Radio National 13/11/09), Senator Evans dismissed the prospect of refunds and said the Government would continue taking applications even though the system was under review.

 

We hope the Minister will agree to meet with representatives from the Institute to discuss options to redress the current impasse. (see the MIA’s submission at www.mia.org.au)

 

Here's a link to the submission from 13-11-2009 (pdf): http://mia.org.au/media/File/091113_GSM_Submission_to_Minister__final.pdf

 

Has anybody heard/read something about the priority processing subject in the media yet?

[McKlaut]

Yesterday the MIA sent a letter to the Australian newspapers and other media:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday 17 November 2009

UNACCEPTABLE SKILLED MIGRATION DELAYS

 

 

 

Oh... finally somebody inside Aus has raised the issue. Unbelievable.

 

Further question. How much influence does MIA have on the government and internal affairs?

[merlino]

Oh... finally somebody inside Aus has raised the issue. Unbelievable.

 

Further question. How much influence does MIA have on the government and internal affairs?

 

I think that when an organisation like the MIA comes forward and speak out against the changes and labeling them as unacceptable, it not only puts forth a clear message but also adds pressure on the decision makers to take up economical and social accountability on their policies.

 

As with many amongst us who have written in to express grief with these changes, the MIA has now openly suggested to the immigration department with ways to resolve this drama. Whether the MIA has influence on the governmental, does not stop them from representing many of us, some of whom are not privileged to be represented by migration agents or lawyers. I think this is a good sign forward!